Counting outs

[Tommy Angelo]

I was playing $20-40 at Lucky Chances today and I was thinking about outs. Like how a backdoor flush draw is worth one fourth of a gutshot. Reminded me a little of the ancient way of comparing chess piece values -- queens were worth nine, rooks were five, knights were three, bishops were three, pawns were worth one each, and then the king came in out of nowhere at two and a half.

So I'm sitting there and this hand came up. I was on the button. Three players limped and I raised with 10-9. Both blinds folded and all limpers called. Fourway.

The flop was 8-3-2 rainbow. The first limper checked. He was about to lose probably a couple hundred on the football game on TV and he had barely touched his lunch. I counted that as half an out. The second limper checked. He almost always misses the flop or so he says, so that was another 1/2 out at least. The third limper, well, this was a little tricky. He checked on the flop as well, but he is a notorious checkraiser. I added one full out just for knowing so. Plus I had two overcards for eight more outs. That's ten outs altogether. That's like having a flush draw and a pawn, the way I figured it. Plenty enough to bet. So I did.

The first two limpers called and the checkraiser checkraised. I went ahead and made it three bets because that's what I tend to do when it looks like nobody has anything much and we've got two bigbet streets to go with me last. The first two limpers folded and the checkraiser had his four chips in hand looking momentarily genuinely indecisive and last second he mucked for one bet. I was still counting outs and I figured winning this hand this way was worth about 2.5 outs going into my cutoff hand.

Tommy

[mike l.]

this is my favorite part:

"Plus I had two overcards for eight more outs."

15 years right? and lessons?

i love it.

[andyfox]

Wonderful. Bravo.

My favorite line, although there are so many to choose from:

"The first limper checked. He was about to lose probably a couple hundred on the football game on TV and he had barely touched his lunch. I counted that as half an out."

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
He was about to lose probably a couple hundred on the football game on TV and he had barely touched his lunch. I counted that as half an out. The second limper checked. He almost always misses the flop or so he says, so that was another 1/2 out at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Tommy. I've always had trouble with partial outs.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
and then the king came in out of nowhere at two and a half.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never heard that before. I usually don't trade away my King at any price. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Eddie Miller writes about "hidden outs" in SSH, but he missed the ones you mentioned. Very cute post, T.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The first limper checked. He was about to lose probably a couple hundred on the football game on TV and he had barely touched his lunch. I counted that as half an out.

[/ QUOTE ]


'half an out' - My Lord, this is worth at least 2 or 3 outs and if accumulation counts then about 100 outs over the timeframe right after the game wriggles and dies on the screen before his eyes. But this is quibbling over small matters or making small talk over quibbling matters so I will halt.

I remember those old Chess piece rankings. It always took me about 25 moves to get the rook into play (usually just before I lost) and I thought the 5 an immense over ranking. Forgetting that my lack of skill was the largest drawback of all. But that was when I was very young and thought I knew something - I am now past such whimsical delusions.


Your post made for a perfect Sunday morning read. Bless you.

-Zeno

[Softrock]

Tommy et. al.

Maybe I'm taking a fun and humorous post too seriously but I did think there was an important message here. How many world class chess players do you think count the points of the pieces remaining? My estimate is zero, plus or minus zero.

My point? Counting outs is important but by the time you think you're playing at a near expert level you don't count them specifically, have a very accurate general sense/knowledge of your chances of hitting something, and you occupy your mind with more important stuff. I think your post says this in a rather nuanced manner (and I also suspect you know this which makes the post doubly funny).

[andyfox]

You're right about those rooks. I didn't even like the word "rook." I could never get them into play. I hated 'em, tucked away in those corners and only able to move in (esentially) one direction, since you couldn't put it into play moving sideways. I loved the knight because moving diagonally seemed so much more, well, cool, than just vertical and horizontal, and all it took was one pawn to get it free to rambling up and back on the board. I, too, had little skill, obviously, beyond knowing which way the pieces moved.

[nothumb]

I wreck people with rooks. Castle early, get them set up on the D and E rows and they're like twin-mounted 50-caliber machine guns. Even better if you can get them doubled up on the same row to mount an attack.

Oh, and the bishop was the one moving diagonally, Andy. The knight doesn't need a pawn to make it move; it hoppity-hops over them like a little bunny. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

BTW I enjoyed the original post immensely, Tommy.

NT

[mike l.]

this place just spoils us. first we get an exceptional expert explanation of how winning a hand adds two immediate outs going into to the next hand. then in the same thread as a bonus we get stellar strategy for our chess game:

"Oh, and the bishop was the one moving diagonally, Andy. The knight doesn't need a pawn to make it move; it hoppity-hops over them like a little bunny."

this place is the NUTS!!!!! mason order those damn t shirts. make mine an XXL muscle tank top please! YARRR!!!!

[andyfox]

Damn, the bishop. No wonder why I couldn't win any games.

[Lawrence Ng]

If there is a really pretty girl at my table playing, I usually give myself one less out. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Tommy Angelo]

ME: "and then the king came in out of nowhere at two and a half."

YOU: "Never heard that before. I usually don't trade away my King at any price."

LOL! Eggzactly! The way I was told it was if you want to assign an offensive value to the king, in the end game, that that value, on the accepted scale, is 2.5.

The trouble was that I (and everyone else, I assumed) used to point system to keep track of the "score" in material DURING THE GAME. Which meant that, if the game was still being played, we both must still have our kings, which meant that the 2.5's ALWAYS balanced out in keeping score, and the whole thing was just absurd to me, when I was six.

Now I've seen this type of thing often enough to recognize that the sour taste comes from when an old scale is given a new purpose that the old scale was not designed for.


Tommy

[BarronVangorToth]

Great play, Tommy and, better still, great story.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)
Values Knights at 2.9 and Bischops at 3.1

[rory]

2.5 seems excessive. So if I have my rook on the 7th and your king is trapped on the 8th, making his 2.5 more like .5, I am up two pawns all other things being equal? This seems so high.

I have never heard of the point value. My own point value is: If my king is in the center of the board in the endgame, that is really good. If my king is trapped on his first rank that is really bad. He is lonely and wants a new bride, but he can't get one if he is trapped at home. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Boris]

I like your analysis and the way you played the hand but I'm sure Sklansky can find something to complain about.

[James282]

When I'm playing Chess I find an interesting anomoly. I keep score the way you do, but I find that the more points you have in the end game the bigger nerd you are - which actually means you're losing.
-James

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I wreck people with rooks. Castle early, get them set up on the D and E rows and they're like twin-mounted 50-caliber machine guns. Even better if you can get them doubled up on the same row to mount an attack.

Oh, and the bishop was the one moving diagonally, Andy. The knight doesn't need a pawn to make it move; it hoppity-hops over them like a little bunny. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

BTW I enjoyed the original post immensely, Tommy.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]


Utilizing Rooks early - and often - is +EV.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[J_V]

I thought the king when assigned a value was worth 3.5. I think I might just go look it up.

[bicyclekick]

This was a good thread til it turned into chess crap.